“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[DBT]

Pg

I posted some of my influences trying to get you to follow suit. What is the problem?

Something like .. rejecting free will and believing in determinism will eliminate war by ... ?
Rejecting free will and believing in determinism will change human behavior by ... ?

I'm trying with my entire being to explain why THE MEANING OF DETERMINISM will change the way humans react.

Knowing the meaning of determinism doesn't alter our essential makeup, our personality, character, needs or wants. You could explain determinism to Trump, and he'd still be Trump thinking Trump thoughts and doing Trump things....

DBT, you’re right. Determinism does not change our essential nature but when the environment transtions from a free will environment of blame and punishment to a no free will environment of no blame and punishment, human conduct veers in a new direction. He was very clear that this does not mean we suddenly stop blaming without the necessary preconditions which involve anything that would justify retaliation.This is explained in Chapter Two and Chapter Six, which we never got to.

How is shifting from the idea of punishment and making examples in order to deter crime, to a more rehabilitation based system fundamentally transform human nature and the world? You may get a reduction in the number of prisoners re-offending when they are released, which is a positive result, but in the world at large it's business as usual.

I can’t explain this in a few sentences. After all, his credibility is on the line. All I can tell you is that this knowledge, when everything is removed that would make us losers by not hurting others as solution to our problems, we won’t be able to strike a first blow because it will give us less satisfaction, not more. If you would like me to post Chapter Two, let me know.

I read the first few chapters of the book when you first posted it, but I didn't see a reasonable explanation for instant seeing or how that can bring about a transformation in human nature or behaviour. Which is why I'm asking you to explain how it could possibly work.

Did you read the chapter I posted? Am I on Candid Camera?

Words often hurt when they are used inappropriately. They will be removed from our vocabulary voluntarily once it is understood that these adjectives are hurtful and do not describe reality for what it is. How else could we receive this beauty (or ugliness) if not for the belief in five senses? IOW, it is believed that this beauty (or ugliness) is contained in the light that is being transmitted to our eyes and interpreted as beauty or ugliness in our brains. But light does transmit a value, which was his first clue. I will repeat this excerpt for your benefit.

Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he were vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face, even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue, because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable.

''The way dogs see human faces is a fascinating blend of visual processing and evolutionary adaptation that has developed through thousands of years of domestication. While dogs are renowned for their exceptional sense of smell, their ability to recognize and interpret human faces plays a crucial role in their relationship with us.''

Recent neuroimaging studies have revealed that dogs possess a dedicated region in their brains specifically for processing faces - both human and canine. This specialized area functions similarly to the human facial recognition center, allowing dogs to distinguish between different individuals and interpret various facial expressions.

Remarkably, dogs can recognize human faces even in photographs, demonstrating that their recognition abilities extend beyond real-time, three-dimensional interactions. This skill sets them apart from many other animals and highlights their unique adaptation to living alongside humans.

How Dogs Process Visual Information

Dogs' visual processing differs significantly from humans in several ways. While they may not see the fine details of our faces as clearly as we do, they excel at detecting movement and can recognize familiar faces even from considerable distances.

Their visual system is particularly attuned to certain facial features, such as:

• Eyes and eye movement
• Overall face shape and structure
• Changes in facial expressions
• Movement of key facial features

How Dogs See Human Faces: Visual Recognition Insight

Explore how dogs recognize human faces through visual processing and emotions, enhancing human-canine bonds.

www.petscare.com

Where is the proof? They said there is scientific backup. I don’t see any references that confirm dogs can recognize familiar faces from still pictures with no other cues such as smell, sound, or movement to help them.

There have a number of studies done.

Abstract​

''Dogs are an ideal species to investigate phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors contributing to face recognition. Previous research has found that dogs can recognise their owner using visual information about the person's face, presented live. However, a thorough investigation of face processing mechanisms requires the use of graphical representations and it currently remains unclear whether dogs are able to spontaneously recognise human faces in photographs. To test this, pet dogs (N = 60) were briefly separated from their owners and, to achieve reunion, they needed to select the location indicated by a photograph of their owner's face, rather than that of an unfamiliar person concurrently presented. Photographs were taken under optimal and suboptimal (non-frontally oriented and unevenly illuminated faces) conditions. Results revealed that dogs approached their owner significantly above chance level when presented with photos taken under optimal conditions. Further analysis revealed no difference in the probability of choosing the owner between the optimal and suboptimal conditions. Dogs were more likely to choose the owner if they directed a higher percentage of looking time towards the owner's photograph compared to the stranger's one. In addition, the longer the total viewing time of both photos, the higher the probability that dogs chose the stranger. A main effect of dogs' sex was also obtained, with a higher probability of male dogs choosing the owner's photograph. This study provides direct evidence that dogs are able to recognise their owner's face from photographs. The results imply that motion and three-dimensional information is not necessary for recognition. The findings also support the ecological valence of such stimuli and increase the validity of previous investigations into dog cognition that used two-dimensional representations of faces. The effects of attention may reflect differences at the individual level in attraction towards novel faces or in the recruitment of different face processing mechanisms.''

Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise our faces in photographs: implications for existing and future research - PubMed

Dogs are an ideal species to investigate phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors contributing to face recognition. Previous research has found that dogs can recognise their owner using visual information about the person's face, presented live. However, a thorough investigation of face processing...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Everything about this experiment was flimsy at best and deceptive at worst. It would have been better if they chose a dog who was very close to his master and was separated from him for a few months such as someone being in the service. Then conduct the experiment by displaying a few pictures of different faces to see if the dog showed any signs of recognition by a wag of a tail or circling the photo or whimpering. SOMETHING!! They tried to support their theory by concluding the dog showed true recognition but it showed nothing of real substance.

That the eyes are senses that evolved to acquire and transmit information from the external world to the brain is not a theory.

 

[peacegirl]

This is a problem because I don't want anyone to start with the assumption that the author was wrong from the very get-go. I believe bilby is looking for me to make a mistake, and he's waiting patiently for the moment when he can pounce, like a lion on the hunt. I don't want to post swaths of text that will be just another failed attempt, not because the author was wrong, but due to an underlying agenda to prove him wrong at all costs, without disproving anything.

That real time/ instant vision is wrong is not an assumption.

Yea it is an assumption that it’s wrong, DBT. You sound like a child who refuses to believe that Santa doesn’t exist because you’ve believed it for so long that you refuse to even entertain the idea. The example about dogs does not show in any way they can recognize their masters from a photo. It just shows how far people will go to make their beliefs fit the narrative.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I posted some of my influences trying to get you to follow suit. What is the problem?

Something like .. rejecting free will and believing in determinism will eliminate war by ... ?
Rejecting free will and believing in determinism will change human behavior by ... ?

I'm trying with my entire being to explain why THE MEANING OF DETERMINISM will change the way humans react.

Knowing the meaning of determinism doesn't alter our essential makeup, our personality, character, needs or wants. You could explain determinism to Trump, and he'd still be Trump thinking Trump thoughts and doing Trump things....

DBT, you’re right. Determinism does not change our essential nature but when the environment transtions from a free will environment of blame and punishment to a no free will environment of no blame and punishment, human conduct veers in a new direction. He was very clear that this does not mean we suddenly stop blaming without the necessary preconditions which involve anything that would justify retaliation.This is explained in Chapter Two and Chapter Six, which we never got to.

How is shifting from the idea of punishment and making examples in order to deter crime, to a more rehabilitation based system fundamentally transform human nature and the world? You may get a reduction in the number of prisoners re-offending when they are released, which is a positive result, but in the world at large it's business as usual.

I can’t explain this in a few sentences. After all, his credibility is on the line. All I can tell you is that this knowledge, when everything is removed that would make us losers by not hurting others as solution to our problems, we won’t be able to strike a first blow because it will give us less satisfaction, not more. If you would like me to post Chapter Two, let me know.

I read the first few chapters of the book when you first posted it, but I didn't see a reasonable explanation for instant seeing or how that can bring about a transformation in human nature or behaviour. Which is why I'm asking you to explain how it could possibly work.

Did you read the chapter I posted? Am I on Candid Camera?

Words often hurt when they are used inappropriately. They will be removed from our vocabulary voluntarily once it is understood that these adjectives are hurtful and do not describe reality for what it is. How else could we receive this beauty (or ugliness) if not for the belief in five senses? IOW, it is believed that this beauty (or ugliness) is contained in the light that is being transmitted to our eyes and interpreted as beauty or ugliness in our brains. But light does transmit a value, which was his first clue. I will repeat this excerpt for your benefit.

Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he were vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face, even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue, because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable.

''The way dogs see human faces is a fascinating blend of visual processing and evolutionary adaptation that has developed through thousands of years of domestication. While dogs are renowned for their exceptional sense of smell, their ability to recognize and interpret human faces plays a crucial role in their relationship with us.''

Recent neuroimaging studies have revealed that dogs possess a dedicated region in their brains specifically for processing faces - both human and canine. This specialized area functions similarly to the human facial recognition center, allowing dogs to distinguish between different individuals and interpret various facial expressions.

Remarkably, dogs can recognize human faces even in photographs, demonstrating that their recognition abilities extend beyond real-time, three-dimensional interactions. This skill sets them apart from many other animals and highlights their unique adaptation to living alongside humans.

How Dogs Process Visual Information

Dogs' visual processing differs significantly from humans in several ways. While they may not see the fine details of our faces as clearly as we do, they excel at detecting movement and can recognize familiar faces even from considerable distances.

Their visual system is particularly attuned to certain facial features, such as:

• Eyes and eye movement
• Overall face shape and structure
• Changes in facial expressions
• Movement of key facial features

How Dogs See Human Faces: Visual Recognition Insight

Explore how dogs recognize human faces through visual processing and emotions, enhancing human-canine bonds.

www.petscare.com

Where is the proof? They said there is scientific backup. I don’t see any references that confirm dogs can recognize familiar faces from still pictures with no other cues such as smell, sound, or movement to help them.

There have a number of studies done.

Abstract​

''Dogs are an ideal species to investigate phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors contributing to face recognition. Previous research has found that dogs can recognise their owner using visual information about the person's face, presented live. However, a thorough investigation of face processing mechanisms requires the use of graphical representations and it currently remains unclear whether dogs are able to spontaneously recognise human faces in photographs. To test this, pet dogs (N = 60) were briefly separated from their owners and, to achieve reunion, they needed to select the location indicated by a photograph of their owner's face, rather than that of an unfamiliar person concurrently presented. Photographs were taken under optimal and suboptimal (non-frontally oriented and unevenly illuminated faces) conditions. Results revealed that dogs approached their owner significantly above chance level when presented with photos taken under optimal conditions. Further analysis revealed no difference in the probability of choosing the owner between the optimal and suboptimal conditions. Dogs were more likely to choose the owner if they directed a higher percentage of looking time towards the owner's photograph compared to the stranger's one. In addition, the longer the total viewing time of both photos, the higher the probability that dogs chose the stranger. A main effect of dogs' sex was also obtained, with a higher probability of male dogs choosing the owner's photograph. This study provides direct evidence that dogs are able to recognise their owner's face from photographs. The results imply that motion and three-dimensional information is not necessary for recognition. The findings also support the ecological valence of such stimuli and increase the validity of previous investigations into dog cognition that used two-dimensional representations of faces. The effects of attention may reflect differences at the individual level in attraction towards novel faces or in the recruitment of different face processing mechanisms.''

Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise our faces in photographs: implications for existing and future research - PubMed

Dogs are an ideal species to investigate phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors contributing to face recognition. Previous research has found that dogs can recognise their owner using visual information about the person's face, presented live. However, a thorough investigation of face processing...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Everything about this experiment was flimsy at best and deceptive at worst. It would have been better if they chose a dog who was very close to his master and was separated from him for a few months such as someone being in the service. Then conduct the experiment by displaying a few pictures of different faces to see if the dog showed any signs of recognition by a wag of a tail or circling the photo or whimpering. SOMETHING!! They tried to support their theory by concluding the dog showed true recognition but it showed nothing of real substance.

That the eyes are senses that evolved to acquire and transmit information from the external world to the brain is not a theory.

Light is a condition of sight. The brain needs light to see the external world. Light does not bring info by means of bouncing off an object and transmitting a picture (or image) of objects over long distances. Your disagreement with this concept because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t change reality.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl has been campaigning for this book on multiple forums for the past quarter century, including some 15 years at the Freethought Forum. During all that time she has taught nothing (because she has nothing to teach), and learned nothing.

Her M.O. is always the same — indeed, her rhetoric is always the same. She will demand that people explain the “first discovery,” but when asked to do so herself, she will tell people to read the book, because the “first discovery” is “too complex” to be summarized! How can she ask people to do what she herself cannot do? Blank out.

She claims that her author disproved free will, but this is something that cannot be disproved because there is no experiment that can be run to falsify it (and, as noted in the philosophy of science thread, falsification itself is not necessarily a reliable criteria for practicing science).

She will constantly misrepresent science, building strawmen for her author to attack. It’s clear that neither she nor her author understood jack shit about science.

For example, despite countless corrections that have been literally going on for decades, she will continue to claim mumbo-jumbo like science says that objects “reflect an image” (they do not) or that light “brings a wavelength” (it does not). Science does not say these things.

For 25 years people have offered probably by now over 100 clear-cut refutations of her real-time seeing bullshit, all of which she has not even attempted to rebut. She simply ignores them and does a mental reset to her default position that her author must be right because he was an “astute observer.”

She claims scientists “assume” stuff like delayed seeing. They do not. Delayed seeing is an observed and documented fact.

Real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible. She concedes that light from the sun takes some 8.5 minutes to arrive at the earth, where all the eyes are, but then argues that eyes see the sun with no time delay. This is obviously impossible as a matter of pure logic, even without empiricism.

We invited her to step outside before dawn with a clear sight of the horizon and watch the sun come up. What would see see? If her author were right, we would watch the sun rise and advance over the horizon with the earth entirely in darkness. Only some 8.5 minutes after sunrise would the ground light up. Obviously we do not see this, so the author’s claims are wrong Q.E.D.

Her rhetoric is always the same. It’s all everyone else’s fault. If people disagree with her author then they haven’t read the claptrap from the book that she posts. But we have read it. That’s WHY we disagree. Because the claims are claptrap.

For her, everyone is a big meanie to her author because we don’t want our “precious world views” to be threatened. Her rhetoric has not changed one iota in some 25 years. Her responses in this thread could have been copy-pasted from identical bullshit at FF.

Her author seems to have had some bizarre fixation on Will Durant and Aristotle. The former was not strictly a philosopher but a popularizer of philosophy. The latter was arguably the first scientist or proto-scientist, but he got a lot of things wrong. The author claims that Aristotle “assumed” that the eye was a sense organ (which it is), but whether he assumed it or not is irrelevant. Nobody today except students of philosophy care what Aristotle thought or taught about pretty much anything. People today do not “assume” that the eye is a sense organ or “assume” that we see in delayed time, we KNOW these things. How? Through empiricism and experimentation.

Aristotle also thought that geocentrism was true, despite a model developed by Aristarchus of Samos that put the sun at the center of the solar system with the earth orbiting around it and revolving on its axis. Aristarchus also said that the stars were simply other suns. But Aristotle rejected all this. So the question is, why is peacegirl’s author jousting with Aristotle and ignoring the subsequent 2,000 years of scientific development that have firmly established that the eye is a sense organ and that we see in delayed time?

Finally, she is a shambles at basic logic. Not only does her claim that it takes light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to arrive at the eye but that nevertheless we see the sun instantly run afoul of the Law of Noncontradiction (something Aristotle got right), but — as repeatedly demonstrated — her claim that after a choice has been made it could not have been otherwise runs afoul of the principle of modal fixity.

In sum, she fails on every count. And she is impervious to learning anything at all. She herself obviously does not understand her father’s book, but her conviction is simply that what her father wrote must be right because her father wrote it.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl has been campaigning for this book on multiple forums for the past quarter century, including some 15 years at the Freethought Forum. During all that time she has taught nothing (because she has nothing to teach), and learned nothing.

This is such bullshit. Pood has had it against me for just as long because he believes that we can do otherwise and not do otherwise at the same time. That is called compatibilism, and he's so off the mark, he just can't accept that free will doesn't exist. And, of course, when I brought up the senses, which has already been established as fact, by scientists, I was tarred and feathered. The fact that he's using the time I spent there and didn't prove my case means absolutely nothing. This is what happens when people use phony reasons to get people to ignore you.

Her M.O. is always the same — indeed, her rhetoric is always the same. She will demand that people explain the “first discovery,” but when asked to do so herself, she will tell people to read the book, because the “first discovery” is “too complex” to be summarized! How can she ask people to do what she herself cannot do? Blank out.

I don't need to confuse people by changing the wording of the author, which could leave out gaps and make his work unclear. You would love to add more lulz to your campaign to ruin him. It's a dirty trick you're playing. I can answer questions after people read with a sincere desire to understand; otherwise, they will be like you, Pood, and I won't have a chance in hell.

She claims that her author disproved free will, but this is something that cannot be disproved because there is no experiment that can be run to falsify it (and, as noted in the philosophy of science thread, falsification itself is not necessarily a reliable criteria for practicing science).

You are so wrong. This knowledge can be proven empirically, which is the gold standard. Wouldn't that make you happy if war and crime were to come to an end as a result of applying the knowledge of no free will?

She will constantly misrepresent science, building strawmen for her author to attack. It’s clear that neither she nor her author understood jack shit about science.

I don't have to know the ins and outs of science to know that compatibilism is a big fat joke. Quantum mechanics does not prove free will, and determinism, the way he explains it, is not a modal fallacy. You're all washed up.

For example, despite countless corrections that have been literally going on for decades, she will continue to claim mumbo-jumbo like science says that objects “reflect an image” (they do not) or that light “brings a wavelength” (it does not). Science does not say these things.

That was shorthand for wavelengths, and you know it. There is a lightwave that is at the eye, but it does not travel for millions of years bringing an image. We see the object because it is there to be seen, using light as a condition. There is nothing so crazy about his claim that people would immediately laugh at it. That is the sign of protecting one's worldview so as not to create cognitive/dissonance.

For 25 years people have offered probably by now over 100 clear-cut refutations of her real-time seeing bullshit, all of which she has not even attempted to rebut. She simply ignores them and does a mental reset to her default position that her author must be right because he was an “astute observer.”

He was an astute observer. What else can I say? How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it? I can tell that after all these years, you never read the book. You defiled it. You tried to make fun of it by taking so many parts out of context that it was unrecognizable. You are not the kind of person that I want reading this book, and if people here are anything like you and your cronies from ff, I'm not going further. It's not worth it to me. I need people who really, truly want to understand what he wrote, and so far, there are no takers. Everyone seems out to attack him before they even know what he's talking about. They just don't believe it's possible to create a peaceful world by veering in a completely different direction, which could not have occurred until now. Every step of our evolution was necessary.

She claims scientists “assume” stuff like delayed seeing. They do not. Delayed seeing is an observed and documented fact.

Light traveling at 186,000 is an observed fact because the tests to prove it were done. But delayed seeing has not been proven; it has been assumed.

Real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible. She concedes that light from the sun takes some 8.5 minutes to arrive at the earth, where all the eyes are, but then argues that eyes see the sun with no time delay. This is obviously impossible as a matter of pure logic, even without empiricism.

Not if the eyes work in the way he described. Afferent and efferent are complete opposites. If the eyes are efferent, and the brain is using them as a window to the external world, it would make sense, but you aren't even trying. Your goal is not to understand, so you never will.

We invited her to step outside before dusk with a clear sight of the horizon and watch the sun come up. What would see see? If her author were right, we would watch the sun rise and advance over the horizon with the earth entirely in darkness.

That's not true. We would see the Sun come up because the light from the Sun would have been here as night turned into day due to the rotation of the Earth. The example he gave about the Sun being turned on and our being able to see it instantly was hypothetical. You are trying to use an example that doesn't apply.

Only some 8.5 minutes after sunrise would the ground light up. Obviously we do not see this, so the author’s claims are wrong Q.E.D.

Her rhetoric is always the same. It’s all everyone else’s fault.

I never said it was everyone's fault. It amazes me how you have developed a way to twist everything to satisfy your desire to hold onto your worldview and convince everyone to come with you in this campaign. This really is about you, not him.

If people disagree with her author then they haven’t read the claptrap from the book that she posts. But we have read it. That’s WHY we disagree. Because the claims are claptrap.

For her, everyone is a big meanie to her author because we don’t want our “precious world views” to be threatened. Her rhetoric has not changed one iota in some 25 years. Her responses in this thread could have been copy-pasted from identical bullshit at FF.

It's not rhetoric, Pood. Again, if empirical proof can show that he was right all along, and we live in a world without war, crime, and poverty, I believe you would still be complaining that we have free will.

Her author seems to have had some bizarre fixation on Will Durant and Aristotle. The former was not strictly a philosopher but a popularizer of philosophy.

He was a philosopher.

Will Durant was a prominent American philosopher and historian, best known for his extensive work "The Story of Civilization" and his influential book "The Story of Philosophy."

Will Durant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The latter was arguably the first scientist or proto-scientist, Yut he got a lot of things wrong. The author claims that Aristotle “assumed” that the eye was a sense organ (which it is), but whether he assumed it or not is irrelevant. Nobody today except students of philosophy care what Aristotle thought or taught about pretty much anything. People today do not “assume” that the eye is a sense organ or “assume” that we see in delayed time, we KNOW these things. How? Through empiricism and experimentation.

He shows why it's not, and his reasoning as to why it's not can be further tested.

Aristotle also thought that geocentrism was true, despite a model developed by Aristarchus of Samos that put the sun at the center of the solar system with the earth orbiting around it and revolving on its axis. Aristarchus also said that the stars were simply other suns. But Aristotle rejected all this. So the question is, why is peacegirl’s author jousting with Aristotle and ignoring the subsequent 2,000 years of scientific development that have firmly established that the eye is a sense organ and that we see in delayed time?

Doesn't matter how long an idea exists. Popularity is not proof of a concept. Look how long free will has been in existence, AND IT'S FALSE.

Finally, she is a shambles at basic logic. Not only does her claim that it takes light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to arrive at the eye but that nevertheless we see the sun instantly run afoul of the Law of Noncontradiction (something Aristotle got right), but — as repeatedly demonstrated — her claim that after a choice has been made it could not have been otherwise runs afoul of the principle of modal fixity.

There is nothing that has run afoul because light is still at the eye. He didn't say that we see without light. Nothing violates physics. It is you who doesn't understand why we would see the Sun first (due to efferent vision) and then see each other 8.5 minutes later, because the light wouldn't have gotten to us yet. We can't see in the dark.

In sum, she fails on every count. And she is impervious to learning anything at all.

I'm impervious because I believe he was right on all counts.

She herself obviously does not understand her father’s book, but her conviction is simply that what her father wrote must be right because her father wrote it.

That's just another attempt to throw him under the bus. It's exasperating to me that you have stooped this low to try to get another group of people to laugh in my face for your need to be right.

 

[steve_bank]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't want to waste my time if people aren't interested. So far, no takers.

You have been wasting your time for 17 months and 4,000 posts, in this thread alone. You're never going to get any takers amongst people who understand how to apply logic and reason, and particularly not when those people are experienced in recognizing bullshit scams of all kinds. Go hawk your pseudoreligion somewhere else.

You are putting yourself in a position that speaks of arrogance. I hope you're not arrogant because I appreciate your comments, and I take them seriously.

 

[pood]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

No pileup at all once you clear the debris!

 

[pood]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

No pileup at all once you clear the debris!

And you are the debris.

 

[peacegirl]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

No pileup at all once you clear the debris!

And you are the debris.

The debris is all the stuff that you are throwing into the pileup that has caused a major delay of lifesaving help at the scene! How much destruction will follow due to your willful ignorance is truly inconceivable!

 

[bilby]

Light is a condition of sight. The brain needs light to see the external world.

OK; Why? What does the light do, exactly, that makes it needed? And how do we see distant (but large and luminous) objects, if the light from them has not reached us, and there is no light present from any other source?

Light does not bring info by means of bouncing off an object and transmitting a picture (or image) of objects over long distances.

I don't care what you claim doesn't happen. I want to know what you claim does happen.

Over here a large bright object suddenly comes into existence. Over there is a person standing in the dark. What, exactly, allows the person to instantly see the object?

If "Light is a condition of sight. The brain needs light to see the external world", then they cannot see it until the light arrives; Yet you say that they will see it instantly. How do you resolve that apparent contradiction?

Last time I asked, I gave an example of what a step by step description might look like, and instead of responding with a similarly logical structure, you simply rejected a step, declaring that you didn't think ot was right, but without giving any reason. In other words, you (yet again) declared what doesn't happen, without declaring what does.

My prediction is that you have exactly zero chance of ever explaining this claim of yours, because it is impossible and contradictory. Are you going to prove me wrong, by the simple means of providing a clear and understandable mechanism; Or are you going to add yet another pebble to the veritable mountain of evidence that you have nothing but abject nonsense and bluster?

 

[bilby]

There is nothing so crazy about his claim that people would immediately laugh at it.

Yeah, there really is. Haven't you been paying attention? Regardless of what you think of Pood, you surely must have noticed that even people who have never heard of Pood also laugh at your nutty claim with its glaringly obvious contradictions.

 

[bilby]

He was an astute observer. What else can I say? How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

Quite. Observing reality is the only path to knowledge.

Reading a book can only help if that book sets out observations anyone can make for themselves; Believing that an author is right is a consequence of being able to independently repeat those observations.

I can tell that after all these years, you never read the book.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

You defiled it.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

Only in religion is defiling a book in any way problematic.

You tried to make fun of it by taking so many parts out of context that it was unrecognizable.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

You are not the kind of person that I want reading this book,

This is not about you. You don't get to be any kind of gatekeeper of knowledge, and nor does anyone else. Such gatekeepers do not exist outside of religion.

and if people here are anything like you and your cronies from ff, I'm not going further.

Good. You are achieving nothing; If there was any chsnce of you "going further" and actually providing details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus, you would have done it by now - your "threat" here is to do what everyone is begging you to do: Put up, or shut up.

It's not worth it to me. I need people who really, truly want to understand what he wrote, and so far, there are no takers.

Here I am!!

I reslly do want to understand. And you keep brushing me off when I plead for the information that you yourself must realise is the sole path to understanding. I need to know what observations I can make, that will demonstrate why your model of sight is better than the current consensus; And as a wise person once said:

How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

 

[pood]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

No pileup at all once you clear the debris!

And you are the debris.

The debris is all the stuff that you are throwing into the pileup that has caused a major delay of lifesaving help at the scene! How much destruction will follow due to your willful ignorance is truly inconceivable!

Oh, peacegirl, you say this crap to everyone, and have been doing so for 25 years. Exactly my point just above. It’s always everyone else’s fault, never the fault of your author, the fault being that his unevidenced claims are utterly ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

I don't want to waste my time if people aren't interested. So far, no takers.

You have been wasting your time for 17 months and 4,000 posts, in this thread alone. You're never going to get any takers amongst people who understand how to apply logic and reason, and particularly not when those people are experienced in recognizing bullshit scams of all kinds. Go hawk your pseudoreligion somewhere else.

You are putting yourself in a position that speaks of arrogance. I hope you're not arrogant because I appreciate your comments, and I take them seriously.

I don't care about arrogance or humility, when the question is one of truth or falsehood; And neither should you. All that matters is evidence. After all, how else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

We certaiy won't find out the truth by only listening to people we like, or who are nice to us. Whether we believe should be based only on whether we can independently repeat the observations another person claims to have made. And we can do that, even if that person is a total asshole - just as long as they give a detailed and precise description of how to make those observations.

That is what I am asking of you.

 

[bilby]

Afferent and efferent are complete opposites. If the eyes are efferent, and the brain is using them as a window to the external world, it would make sense

Well, no. That might, possibly, be the very beginning of an explanation that could, perhaps, make sense; But you have stopped after just throwing out some ten dollar words, as though you hope your audience will be cowed by them. Where is the explanation of why and how your claim would make sense if eyes worked in the reverse way to the consensus? Where is the detailed description of the observations I myself can make to confirm this claim?

Efferent vision founders on the observations that different people all agree on what they see when looking at the same scene, and that people cannot see in the dark, and also all agree on when it is dark.

We would see the Sun come up because the light from the Sun would have been here as night turned into day due to the rotation of the Earth.

That's too imprecise to be meaningful. It just gives the impression that you are the one who doesn't understand what they are talking about, and that you haven't thought this through carefully.

The example he gave about the Sun being turned on and our being able to see it instantly was hypothetical.

That's OK. But the question is, was it right or wrong? And how do we know? Remember:

How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

 

[peacegirl]

Light is a condition of sight. The brain needs light to see the external world.

OK; Why? What does the light do, exactly, that makes it needed? And how do we see distant (but large and luminous) objects, if the light from them has not reached us, and there is no light present from any other source?

Because this is not about reaching us. You are still thinking only in terms of afferent vision, which is what he's disputing. This is why you're not getting it.

Light does not bring info by means of bouncing off an objeThct and transmitting a picture (or image) of objects over long distances.

I don't care what you claim doesn't happen. I want to know what you claim does happen.

I posted the entire chapter. He explained this:
As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

Over here a large bright object suddenly comes into existence. Over there is a person standing in the dark. What, exactly, allows the person to instantly see the object?

If "Light is a condition of sight. The brain needs light to see the external world", then they cannot see it until the light arrives; Yet you say that they will see it instantly. How do you resolve that apparent contradiction?

No, it's not a contradiction. He gave this original example to help understand why we could see the Sun explode instantly before light actually got to Earth. There is no time involved in this account of vision. But this was a hypothetical example of explaining why we would see the Sun explode before the light reached us on Earth for a better understanding of how the brain and eyes work (which hasn't helped obviously). The Sun's light arrived when the solar system was first formed about 4.6 billion years ago; it's just that light is on the other side of Earth during its orbit, which gives us darkness.

The Sun formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of matter within a region of a large molecular cloud. This process initiated nuclear fusion in its core, which is essential for sustaining life on Earth. The Sun's energy is vital for most life on our planet, and it plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution of the solar system.
Bibleinfo.com+3

Last time I asked, I gave an example of what a step by step description might look like, and instead of responding with a similarly logical structure, you simply rejected a step, declaring that you didn't think ot was right, but without giving any reason. In other words, you (yet again) declared what doesn't happen, without declaring what does.

He did declare what happens when the brain and eyes work in the opposite direction of what is believed. I did not skip anything. I gave you the chapter. You may not like how he explained it, but that's probably because you want more of an explanation. I can only give you what I have. I hope it's enough for scientists to look at the claim with interest before telling me he was a kook. That's what Pood is hoping for.

My prediction is that you have exactly zero chance of ever explaining this claim of yours, because it is impossible and contradictory. Are you going to prove me wrong, by the simple means of providing a clear and understandable mechanism; Or are you going to add yet another pebble to the veritable mountain of evidence that you have nothing but abject nonsense and bluster?

I am not here to upset anyone. I have done everything I can to create interest, but all I get is, it's all nonsense. He explained how it's possible to see instantly because of what the brain can do, using the eyes, not as an organ that brings an image to the brain, but what is looked at and photographed by the brain using the eyes as a window to the world. It's really not that far-fetched, but when people have been ingrained by what they've been taught is an absolute fact from an early age, it's hard to undo it, or even dare to challenge present-day thinking.

 

[pood]

I am not here to upset anyone.

You have not upset anyone. You amuse and astound us. We are slack-jawed in disbelief that you could propagate such errant nonsense.

I have done everything I can to create interest, but all I get is, it's all nonsense.

Because it is.

He explained …

He explained precisely nothing, He simply asserted a claim that is empirically and demonstrably false.

… how it's possible to see instantly because of what the brain can do, using the eyes, not as an organ that brings an image to the brain…

For the eighty-millionth time, images are not brought to the brain. They are formed in the brain.

… but what is looked at and photographed by the brain…

Meaningless drivel. The brain does not take photographs. Cameras do.

… using the eyes as a window to the world. ,,,

More meaningless drivel. The eyes are not windows.

It's really not that far-fetched, but when people have been ingrained by what they've been taught is an absolute fact from an early age, it's hard to undo it, or even dare to challenge present-day thinking.

Yeah, yeah, more of you and your father’s bullshit, that people are propagandized to belief scientific facts whereas in fact they learn about the world through empiricism and experimentation, and not from fucking holy books, which your father’s book is. Seymour the grand poobah of some bullshit or other,

 

[bilby]

At this point, I would like to reiterate my post number 1,317 in this very thread, and I would implore @peacegirl to read it carefully and try to understand it. It is fairly long, as BB posts go; But it isn't anywhere close to as long as the book she wants us to read, or even to many of the excerpts from that book she has posted for us:

The problem, as I see it, is the way that science is taught in schools, particularly at the primary school level, which for many (likely most) people in any given community is the only science education they ever get.

See, people have this impression, based on that educational experience, that science is much the same as all the other subjects we study. But it is not. Science is fundamentally different, and most people are never exposed to that fact.

Worse, we use the word "science" in two distinct ways, and this only adds to the confusion. "Science" can mean "The methodology by which we find out about reality"; But it can also mean "The body of information generated by the scientific method"

Education (in the west, at least) started off as a religious activity, and in primary education, this history has an enduring footprint. When teaching children about Christianity, there is a primary reference, the Bible, which is supposedly unquestionable, and which contains the right answers. Even in non-Christian religions, there are fundamentals that are to be accepted without question; And behind it all is the pre-literacy understanding that writing is magic.

If something is written, then it is true. The answer is in the book.

If a teacher and his student are in dispute, they resolve the dispute by refering to the textbook. The book has the right answer. If the book agrees with you, you win the argument.

Science (the methodology) fundamentally rejects this. In science (the methodology), books are just the words of people who are not even present; No dispute can be resolved by direct reference to mere writings. The writings themselves must be tested against reality.

Science (the body of information) is just an attempt to save time and effort. When the methodology has been applied repeatedly to a given question, and has so far always given the same answer, we write the answer in a book and get kids to memorise it, not because it is The Truth^TM, but because it would be impossible to get things done if every time we wanted to examine anything, we had to start by demonstrating (yet again) that matter comprises particles of such-and-such a mass, with such-and-such an electric charge, etc., etc.

When I want to know the speed of light in a vacuum, I look it up in a book. Not because the books are never wrong, but because I have decided to provisionally trust the existing science (the body of information), as a time saving shortcut. If I had any inkling of a doubt, I could, should, and would reject what is written, and go test for myself using science (the methodology) to find the speed of light in a vacuum.

Disputes in science (the methodology), regarding what is a part of science (the body of information) are resolved by reference to reality - we devise and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, and these experiments belong, not to a priestly class, nor to a teacher who has control of the textbook, nor to a Board of Education who decide which books are textbooks and which are not, but to anyone who wants to conduct them.

Science (the methodology), unlike any other educational discipline, is ruthlessly egalitarian. Anyone can overturn science (the body of work) by coming up with a test that anyone else can repeat, and which reliably demonstrates (a part of) that body of work to be false.

But (at primary school) we teach science (the body of work) the way we teach religion; And we don't teach the methodology part at all, or if we do, we treat it as though it were just another rule to be memorised and regurgitated without question.

Kids are left with the impression that science (the body of information) is just another set of beliefs. And as we see from the massive diversity of sects just within one major branch of one religion, this implies that anyone can just make up any old rubbish they like, and then set about collecting disciples, adherents, and evangelists to believe it and spread the word. The criteria for success are having as many adherents as possible; Having evangelical zeal, to accrue still more adherents to your position; And most importantly of all, having a book.

Science (the body of information) is taught this way in schools. So it's hardly surprising that so much pseudoscience arises amongst those with limited exposure to science as a methodology, rather than as a body of information.

This fundamental failure to grasp what science (the methodology) is, or how science (the body of information) came to be, and how it can be (and constantly is) changed as new observations are made and new experiments carried out, is at the root of the problem here.

We can talk about free will, eyes as sense organs, how light works, etc., etc., until the cows freeze over, and it won't change a thing - because peacegirl is not on the same page as the rest of us. Peacegirl doesn't understand that science differs in any important way from theology, and so is determined to win her argument on the basis of theological rhetoric. She has a new book, and wants it to replace, or supplement, the old book. Because she thinks that's how knowledge works.

She does not, and perhaps cannot, grasp that the science books we use are not books of power, but are mere aide-mémoires that tally the current state of the game.

Replacing Newton's Optiks, or Einstein's General Relativity, or Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, with a new book of wondrous claims is not only difficult; It is futile. No part of science (the methodology) is beholden to books of science (the body of information); Unlike in literally every other educational discipline*, in science the relationship is reversed.

The body of work derives from, and is entirely subservient to, the methodology. You can subvert a church by replacing its Bible with a new work (a Koran, or a Book of Mormon, or the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard, or of Lessans, or of anyone). But you can only subvert science (the body of information) by following the scientific method - and if a change is shown by that method to be required, the science books are all rendered obsolete at a stroke. There are no sects or splinter groups - only people who have abandoned the scientific methodology, and thereby rendered themselves irrelevant.

The methodology is simple. Hypotheses, rigorously tested against repeatable and universally testable observations, and those shown to be false, discarded.

If you want to change science (the body of information) it is simple (but not easy): Just detail an observation that anyone else can make for themselves, which demonstrates that a part of that body of information is false.

Be aware that trust is not a part of science (the methodology). No scientist trusts anyone, particularly not himself.

The question is not "should we trust Newton, or should we trust Lessans?". The question is "Which of these two has given us the details needed to repeat his work, and surprise ourselves into agreeing with his answers, starting from a provisional assumption that his answers are bullshit?"

Newton has done that. You don't need to take his word for anything, and he doesn't ask you to; He has provided a detailed set of procedures for proving him wrong, and invites you to give it your best shot, either using his procedure, or coming up with your own. That, right there, is science.







* The very word 'discipline', meaning 'a field of study', carries the historical baggage of the idea that one learns by rote, from infallible books, whereby error arises only from incorrect reading or interpretation of the sacred text. Science ain't like that, but primary education usually acts as though it were.